That's what the Swedish discrepancy is all about. The legal definition of rape in Sweden is more encompassing than most places and the figure is still not quite 100 in 100,000 (or 1%). I also know plenty of females (and indeed may be one myself) who have been raped and those who have not. My mother has not been raped, my sister has not been raped, none of my female cousins have reported being raped. What I haven't done is inferred that because of my specific interaction with women, that the incidence of rape is low. I've gone back to the stats and figures, even if they are vastly underreported we're still not looking at billions and billions of women.

Also, assault, emotional abuse, and physical abuse are not rape. Conflation of these things is a dangerous road to travel. Women being mistreated by men is a significant problem - but one I think Western liberal democracy is doing a better job with than most places in the world. These are instances of misogyny, but they do not constitute rape. If what you're suggesting is that every time a man and a woman have an unhappy experience that it should be indicative of and recorded as a rape case - then you have answered your own question here. Men are not going to agree to that - I'd go as far as to say that most women won't agree to that either. It trivialises the very real horror that is rape.

Once again, we have to be very clear with both definitions and what we are saying.... that is how you solve a specific problem. If what you're really ranting about is the poor treatment of women in general, then by all means have at it. I'm not going to defend misogyny.

If what you're saying is that, despite the mathemetical improbability and the statistical evidence provided - every negative interaction between men and women constitutes rape, then I'll kick back because a) it's nonsense and b) it's unhelpful towards the greater feminist cause.